It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The TPP: The 'wedding' between Socialism and capitalism

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:14 AM
While working yesterday, I was listening to a local conservative station in Seattle, 770 AM. They call themselves the 'Conservative' station. I have more or less cubby-holed them into the Republican Establishment genre.

Anyways, they had a guest speaker on extolling the virtues of the TPP . He basically rebutted the job loss issue by stating that the agreement would open the doors in other countries for U.S. Corporations that were previously closed which would result in more jobs via those new marketplaces.

The other point he raised was the trade deficit. He pointed out that when the economy was booming in the 90's, our trade deficit was very high due to more disposable income and demand for manufactured goods resulting from that 'booming' economy.

He further pointed out that addressing trade deficits with specific nations-he cited Mexico, then Brazil- thereby avoiding China- by pointing out that fixing trade deficits with specific countries wouldn't fix the overall trade deficit!!

I'd point out the host didn't rebut or question any of this!

Without delving into each in the OP, there is 'some' truth to all of this. Yet the overview is completely ignored by this individual-I caught this slightly after the start and missed the name and group he represented....sorry about that- and the fact is to gain these 'concessions' we, per force, are giving concessions in return. Seeing we're starting this 'accord' already behind in the 'game' with no spoken/promoted long term advantage for the U.S..

For individual Corporations, a resounding YES. For the U.S. collectively? Obviously NOT, else they'd be promoting that fact to support the pact.

The trade deficit comments are sheer spin, IMO.

In the day, Gov't had the role of over-site when it came to Corporations Anti-trust laws, etc. The regulations, per the right were deemed overly restrictive, of which I did and do agree, those restrictions were eased, to say the least, and the economy did surge. Where the left's argument is valid to an extent is at some point, be it incrementally or not, greed and criminality also 'surged' within the Corporate world as a result. Hard to argue that it didn't.

(Where and when is not germane to this thread nor who is responsible...blah, blah, so please refer to the vast multitudes of thread addressing that subject already.)

As the large gov't crowd has held sway for some time now- one would think that they would have changed, altered to some degree this imbalance and yes the right's control of congress and impeded that effort, if in fact, an honest attempt was ever made knowing full well those lip-service efforts were merely P.R. as there was no chance for success- and the result is even more Corporate control of our economy lead by Obama and company.

Yes the relationship between corporations and socialists have been around for a while now. They eventually 'moved in together' and now they are getting 'married'....LOL

Guess what? We're not invited to the wedding....

edit on 10-10-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:07 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Socialism is not government control, it's worker ownership. So can you point out what in TPP gives workers the control of the means of production?

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:11 AM
a reply to: Kali74

Worker ownership is communism, not socialism.

Get a dictionary and clear up the terms.....

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:23 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker


Communism uses Socialism as its economic model as does Anarchism. In Communism it would mean collective worker ownership where as in Anarchism it would mean individual workers or small collectives of worker ownership (the freedom to choose either way).
edit on 10/10/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:27 AM
So if you look at Bernie Sanders, a "Socialist" but a modern type of socialist, he's against the TPP too. Socialism should benefit the average man. The TPP doesn't, therefore I'm thinking it's Fascism or Corporatocracy.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:52 AM
a reply to: amazing

Yes, he has said he's against the TPP. Hillary has followed suit. As has the other candidate whose name escapes.

I suppose if one is charitable, at the least, it's something. However, forgive my skepticism when I point out that none of these guys are naming the Corporations involved or ANY information on the particulars of the legislation.

To rebut in advance, if they don't know who those Corporations are or the bill, itself, then say so. Tell us who is withholding that information. If 'no one' has it the tell us.

To be less than kind, their being against it is verbal bull without backing it up.

If not, then the bill will be in fact LAW by the time the next President is sworn in...Then he can shrug and say "it's law, nothing I can do about it. BUT I WAS AGAINST IT. See? there's my voting record"....yeah right.

edit on 10-10-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:36 PM
a reply to: Kali74

Unless it's enforced. Then it falls back into the communist system.

Of course, the example of that working as a system is limited to say the least. Even then, only under a capitalist system would a worker owned operation have any chance of success.

Frankly, I'd like to see more of it attempted. It would be a hoot. In the company I work for, I'd quit before it became 'worker-owned'. They'd kill it within six months. The owner is frankly a prick! Yet, without him the whole thing would have gone down at least twice I know of in the three years I've worked here.

Can it work here and there? Perhaps. Can it work across the board and as a norm, say, nation-wide? No freaking way.

The label, 'socialism', is rather loose, I'll admit. Your version is well within that camp I refer to, if not mainstream as of yet. I'd call it extreme socialism', personally....

edit on 10-10-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in